Funding friendly research has perhaps been the most important component of this strategy, because it conveys the impression that the scientific community truly is divided. Thus, when studies have linked wireless radiation to cancer or genetic damage—as Carlo’s WTR did in 1999; as the WHO’s Interphone study did in 2010; and as the US National Toxicology Program did in 2016—industry spokespeople can point out, accurately, that other studies disagree. “[T]he overall balance of the evidence” gives no cause for alarm, asserted Jack Rowley, research and sustainability director for the Groupe Special Mobile Association (GSMA), Europe’s wireless trade association, speaking to reporters about the WHO’s findings.22
Irradiation was performed during three weeks, after which plants were removed from the chambers for measurements of volatile organic compound (VOC) emission and analyses of leaf structure and essential oil content. All measurements of VOC emission and analyses of leaf structure and essential oil content have been replicated with eight different plants.
A 2012 study by NCI researchers (25) compared observed glioma incidence rates in U.S. SEER data with rates simulated from the small risks reported in the Interphone study (6) and the greatly increased risk of brain cancer among cell phone users reported in the Swedish pooled analysis (19). The authors concluded that overall, the incidence rates of glioma in the United States did not increase over the study period. They noted that the US rates could be consistent with the small increased risk seen among the subset of heaviest users in the Interphone study. The observed incidence trends were inconsistent with the high risks reported in the Swedish pooled study. These findings suggest that the increased risks observed in the Swedish study are not reflected in U.S. incidence trends.
Cell phones emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation, and RF radiation has been shown to damage DNA and cause cancer in laboratory animals. A peer-reviewed Jan. 2012 study in the Journal of Neuro-Oncology concluded that RF radiation "may damage DNA and change gene expression in brain cells" in mice.  An Aug. 2009 meta-study found that RF radiation "can alter the genetic material of exposed cells."  A 2004 European Union-funded study also found that cell phone radiation can damage genes.  On May 26, 2016, the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) released the first results of its study on cell phone radiation, finding an increased incidence of malignant tumors of the brain (gliomas) and heart tumors (schwannomas) in rats exposed to RF radiation.  The NTP researchers also found DNA damage in the rats exposed to the highest levels of RF radiation.  On Nov. 1, 2018, the NTP released its final peer-reviewed report, concluding that there is "clear evidence of carcinogenic activity” in male rats exposed to RF radiation. 
Want an official word on the matter? The World Health Organization, which tends to err on the side of caution before outright dismissing something as toxic, carcinogenic, or otherwise harmful, is very clear that there is no health risk from radio-frequency communication devices. (Their briefing on the matter is actually a great read that highlights how low the risk is and how even people in Wi-Fi dense locations like schools and hospitals are exposed to radio-frequency radiation at thousands of times lower than international safety standards designed to protect individuals working in related industries).
Drivers that talk on cell phones while they drive may be at risk for accidents. A handful of states have made hand-held cell phone use illegal while operating a motor vehicle. Plug into a headset or hands-free device and then you’re safe, or so seems the message. But a growing stable of studies suggests that drivers engaged in complex conversations, hands-free or otherwise, are a leading roadway danger.
35. Check your child’s cell phone records. “Review cell phone records for any unknown numbers and late night phone calls and texts.” While it may feel as though you’re snooping on your kids, reviewing their calling and texting records can help you identify warning signs such as strange calling patterns or unfamiliar numbers that could indicate that your child is communicating with someone they shouldn’t be such as a potential predator. – Help children use cell phones safely, NetSmartz Workshop; Twitter: @NetSmartz
✝✝With PromoCode, We Pay Your Sales Tax Obligations in California, Arizona, Washington, and Georgia. Sales tax is included in the price in Nevada and Texas. Sales Tax Collected and Remitted Pursuant to Applicable State Law. Offer Valid for In-Store and Online Purchases in California, Arizona, Washington, Georgia, Texas and Nevada. Offer Not Valid in Indiana, Illinois, Oregon, and Tennessee. Offer not valid for shipping for the Processor and Gaming Console categories. Click here to get your Instant PromoCode
According to American Academy of Pediatrics President Dr. Robert Block, when cell phones are used by children, "the average RF energy deposition is two times higher in the brain and 10 times higher in the bone marrow of the skull," than for adults.  A July 2008 peer-reviewed study shows that children under the age of eight absorb twice the amount of radiation into their brain tissue as adults due to their lower skull thickness. 
Thus far, the data from studies in children with cancer do not support this theory. The first published analysis came from a large case–control study called CEFALO, which was conducted in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland. The study included children who were diagnosed with brain tumors between 2004 and 2008, when their ages ranged from 7 to 19 years. Researchers did not find an association between cell phone use and brain tumor risk either by time since initiation of use, amount of use, or by the location of the tumor (21).
The agency is finally moving to meet the realities of the 21st century and the Information Age. On June 15, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski circulated a proposal to his four fellow commissioners calling for formal review of the 1996 regulations. To advance, his plan must be approved by a majority of the commissioners. If they agree, the FCC could take the long overdue step of modernizing its safety standards. But the pace is likely to be glacial.
Wireless internet (Wi-Fi) electromagnetic waves (2.45 GHz) have widespread usage almost everywhere, especially in our homes. Considering the recent reports about some hazardous effects of Wi-Fi signals on the nervous system, this study aimed to investigate the effect of 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi radiation on multisensory integration in rats. This experimental study was done on 80 male Wistar rats that were allocated into exposure and sham groups. Wi-Fi exposure to 2.4 GHz microwaves [in Service Set Identifier mode (23.6 dBm and 3% for power and duty cycle, respectively)] was done for 30 days (12 h/day). Cross-modal visual-tactile object recognition (CMOR) task was performed by four variations of spontaneous object recognition (SOR) test including standard SOR, tactile SOR, visual SOR, and CMOR tests. A discrimination ratio was calculated to assess the preference of animal to the novel object. The expression levels of M1 and GAT1 mRNA in the hippocampus were assessed by quantitative real-time RT-PCR. Results demonstrated that rats in Wi-Fi exposure groups could not discriminate significantly between the novel and familiar objects in any of the standard SOR, tactile SOR, visual SOR, and CMOR tests. The expression of M1 receptors increased following Wi-Fi exposure. In conclusion, results of this study showed that chronic exposure to Wi-Fi electromagnetic waves might impair both unimodal and cross-modal encoding of information.
This study aimed to investigate the major cause of male infertility during short- (1h/day for 2 months) and long-term (7h/day for 2 months) exposure of 2.45 GHz Wi-Fi radiation. Both 1-hour and 7-hour groups showed a decrease in sperm parameters in a time dependent pattern and the number of apoptosis-positive cells and caspase-3 activity increased in the seminiferous tubules of exposed rats. The seminal vesicle weight reduced significantly in both1-hour or 7-hour groups in comparison to the control group. Researchers concluded that there should be a major concern regarding the time dependent exposure of whole-body to the higher frequencies of Wi-Fi networks existing in the vicinity of our living places.
Radiofrequency radiation is a form of electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be categorized into two types: ionizing (e.g., x-rays, radon, and cosmic rays) and non-ionizing (e.g., radiofrequency and extremely low frequency, or power frequency). Electromagnetic radiation is defined according to its wavelength and frequency, which is the number of cycles of a wave that pass a reference point per second. Electromagnetic frequencies are described in units called hertz (Hz).
According to an anonymous questionnaire, daily active cell phone usage was divided into three groups as following: Group A, < 30 min/d; Group B, from 30 min/d to 2 h/d; and Group C, > 2 h/d. Habits of carrying a mobile phone was recorded as (A) in the pocket of trousers, (B) in a handbag, or (C) in the pocket of jackets. Wireless internet usage was divided in to three groups, Group A: < 30 min/d; Group B, from 30 min/d to 2 h/d; and Group C, > 2 h/d. Internet usage types recorded as wireless or not.
AutomotiveCar Care,Car Electronics,Car Safety & Se...9710 ElectricalBatteries,Extension Cords & Power Strips...2672 Fire Pits & Outdoor Heaters162 Grills & AccessoriesGrill Covers,Grilling Accessories,Grills...966 Hand & Power ToolsHand Tools,Power Tool Accessories,Power...6849 Heating & CoolingAir Conditioners,Dehumidifiers,Draft Sto...1799 Home ImprovementAppliances,Bathroom Faucets,Building Mat...12707 LightingCeiling Fans,Fixtures,Flood Lights & Sec...2879
RESULTS: The results revealed that long-term exposure of 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi radiation can alter expression of some of the miRNAs such as miR-106b-5p (adj p* = 0.010) and miR-107 (adj p* = 0.005). We observed that mir 107 expression is 3.3 times and miR- 106b-5p expression is 3.65 times lower in the exposure group than in the control group. However, miR-9-5p, miR-29a-3p and miR-125a-3p levels in brain were not altered.